BANARASISINGH C RAJPUT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the original accused no.1 of CR No. I. 47/1994 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 395, 397, 427 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec.135 of the Bombay Police Act, inter alia, alleging that on 8.3.1994 between 6.30 & 7.30 P.M. the complainant Bharatbhai Ratilal who is the owner of STD Booth at Sabarmati, along with his father in law Arvindbhai had gone out and at that time his brother in law Sanjay Vyas and sister-in-law Shilpaben were looking after the business. At that time, one Mahendrabhai Ramsingh has come to the STD Booth for making a phone call and raised dispute about the amount of bill of Rs.164/. Said Mahendrabhai was insisting that he is supposed to pay Rs.102/ only and nothing more than that amount. At that point of time, complainant returned with his father-in-law and they tried to explain the correctness of the bill given to Mahendrabhai. Meanwhile, accused persons came to the STD Booth and accused no.3 Surendrabhai asked the complainant as to who is the owner of the STD Booth. During the exchange of words, scuffle took place and incident has been unfolded by the prosecution in the complaint as well as by the prosecution witnesses in their statements.

(2.) The charge of the offence punishable under Sec.397 of Indian Penal Code is framed on the statement of P.W. Kokilaben. It is submitted that as alleged in the complaint and papers of investigation, P.W. Kokilaben was robbed and her golden chain was snatched and was taken away by accused no.1 and while committing this offence of snatching of a gold chain, P.W. Kokilaben has been caused injury. The say of the prosecution is that offence against the property is committed and gold chain has been snatched away by using force under threat to cause death or grievous hurt and, therefore, offence punishable under Sec.397 of Indian Penal Code can be said to have been committed by the accused. It is argued by ld. APP that the Court is not supposed to appreciate the contents of police statement or complaint.

(3.) After committal of the case by ld. JMFC, the same is registered as Sessions Case No. 199/1994. Pending the hearing of said Sessions Case, the accused persons submitted an application for discharge under Sec.228(1) of CrPC for discharging them from the offences alleged against them. However, ld. Add. Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), vide order dated 16.6.2003 below application exh.18, rejected the said application an directed to frame charges as discussed in the said order. While rejecting the said application, the ld. Judge refused to accept the contentions raised by the accused persons and ultimately held that there is sufficient material on record to show, prima facie, that accused has committed offence under Sec.394 R/w Sec.397 of Indian Penal Code. It is further held that from the material on record, strong suspicion can be raised that the accused persons have committed an offence punishable under Sec.397 of Indian Penal Code R/w other serious offences mentioned in the charge. Let me quote relevant Sections 394 & 397 of Indian Penal Code herein below:-